DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 for Application No. DE10 2021105237.8 filed on 03/04/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/28/2023 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to for informalities, lack of antecedent support, or for redundancies. The Examiner recommends the following changes:
Claim 1, line 12, replace “at least one” with “a”
Claim 6:
Line 1, replace “a device” with “the device”
Line 2, replace “the second device” with “the second device”
Line 4, replace “a third parameter set” with “the third parameter set”
Claim 7:
Line 4, replace “a first parameter set” with “the first parameter set”, and replace “one or more first parameter values” with “the one or more first parameter values”
Line 5, replace “a functionality” with “the functionality”
Line 6, replace “a first parameter value” with “the first parameter value”
Line 7, replace “other devices” with “the other devices”
Line 8, replace “a second parameter set including one” with “the second parameter set including the one”
Line 9, replace “a functionality” with “the functionality”
Line 10, replace “a second parameter value” with “the second parameter value”
Line 12, replace “at least one third parameter set of a second device” with “the third parameter set of the second device”
Line 13, replace “third parameter values with “the third parameter values”.
Lines 17-18, replace “one or more of the functionalities” with “the one or more of the functionalities”
Line 18, replace “for use” with “for the use”
Line 19, replace “a payload” with “the payload”, and replace “if at least one” with “if the at least one”
Line 20, replace “for use” with “for the use”
Claim 9, line 3, delete “respectively,”
Appropriate correction is respectfully requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites “providing, in a first device according to claim 1, a first parameter set …”. It is unclear what Applicant means by “a first device according to claim 1,” as claim 1 does not recite “a first device”. Appropriate clarification through claim amendment is respectfully requested. For purposes of examination, “a first device according to claim 1” will be interpreted as “the device according to claim 1”.
Claims 8-20 are dependent claims of claim 7. The claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and therefore, claims 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Independent claim 1:
(Step 2A, Prong One) Independent claim 1 recites, “... a processing unit configured to compare the third parameter set with the second parameter set, to select, based on the comparison, one or more of the functionalities of made available by the second device for use...”.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, if a claim limitation covers performance that can be executed in the human mind, but for the recitation of generic electronic devices or generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation and based on the description provided in the Specification, such as paragraph [0018], for instance, the compare and select functions are mental process that can be performed through observation, evaluation and judgement based on parameter values indicating associated functionality between devices. Therefore, a person may perform, through observation, evaluation and judgement, the features enunciated above.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(Step 2A, Prong Two) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations of, “at least one storage unit in which a first parameter set and a second parameter set are provided, wherein the first parameter set includes one or more first parameter values indicating whether a functionality associated with a first parameter value is to be made available by the device to other devices, wherein the second parameter set includes one or more second parameter values indicating whether a functionality associated with a second parameter value is to be made available by the other devices to the device; a communication interface configured to obtain at least one third parameter set from a second device, wherein the third parameter set includes third parameter values indicating which of the functionalities associated with the third parameter values are to be made available by the second device; … to establish a payload connection with the second device if at least one functionality made available by the second device has been selected for use.”
The additional limitation “at least one storage unit in which a first parameter set and a second parameter set are provided, wherein the first parameter set includes one or more first parameter values indicating whether a functionality associated with a first parameter value is to be made available by the device to other devices, wherein the second parameter set includes one or more second parameter values indicating whether a functionality associated with a second parameter value is to be made available by the other devices to the device” and “a communication interface configured to obtain at least one third parameter set from a second device, wherein the third parameter set includes third parameter values indicating which of the functionalities associated with the third parameter values are to be made available by the second device” (emphasis added) as recited in the claim that are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used to compare and select as recited in the claim, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using generic electronic or computer components. Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea is not indicative of integration into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.05(f)
The claim recites the additional limitation of “to establish a payload connection with the second device if at least one functionality made available by the second device has been selected for use.” The practical application requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. When so evaluated, the additional limitation of “to establish a payload connection with the second device if at least one functionality made available by the second device has been selected for use” is merely adding the word establish with the judicial exception that attempts to cover a solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it", and does not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, and therefore is not indicative of integration into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim does not recite an improvement in a technology as set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(a). Accordingly, the additional limitations recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In view of the foregoing, the additional limitations are not sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application.
(Step 2B) The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional features including “at least one storage unit in which a first parameter set and a second parameter set are provided, wherein the first parameter set includes one or more first parameter values indicating whether a functionality associated with a first parameter value is to be made available by the device to other devices, wherein the second parameter set includes one or more second parameter values indicating whether a functionality associated with a second parameter value is to be made available by the other devices to the device” and “a communication interface configured to obtain at least one third parameter set from a second device, wherein the third parameter set includes third parameter values indicating which of the functionalities associated with the third parameter values are to be made available by the second device” (emphasis added), as recited in the claim that are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitation may be tools that are used for the functions recited in the claim, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic or computer component. Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more.
The additional limitation of “to establish a payload connection with the second device if at least one functionality made available by the second device has been selected for use” is merely adding the word establish (or “to apply”) with the judicial exception, and does not impose a meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional claimed features do not amount to significantly more and the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the communication interface includes at least one of: a wired interface, a wireless interface, an optical interface, an inductive interface, or an acoustic interface.” The claim adds more detail to or are cumulative to the tool of claim 1, the communication interface, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic or computer component that is used for the functions recited in claim 1, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 recitation “at least one of: an actuator, a sensor, a data storage unit, a data read unit, a data output unit, a computing unit, a control unit, a power supply, or a peripheral device connected to the device” are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used to compare and select as recited in claim 1, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic or computer component that is used for the functions recited in the claim, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. The claim recitation “wherein functionalities of the at least one element are indicated in the first parameter set with associated first parameter values” is merely adding the word indicated with the judicial exception that attempts to cover a solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it", and does not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The recitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 recitation “wherein the sensor comprises at least one of: a temperature sensor, a pressure sensor, a position sensor, a GPS sensor, an acceleration sensor, a current sensor, a voltage sensor, an optical sensor, an image sensor, a motion sensor, or a humidity sensor” are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used to compare and select as recited in claims 1 and 3, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic or computer component that is used for the functions recited in the claim, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 recitation “comprising or being part of at least one of: a computer, a microscope, a microtome, a high-pressure freezer, an automated stainer, a coater, a pipetting robot, a pick-and-place robot, a climate chamber, a laboratory automation device, a motorized stage, a heating system, a cooling system, an injection system, or an illumination device” are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used to compare and select as recited in the claim, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic or computer component that is used for the functions recited in claim 1, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 recitation “a second device including: at least one storage unit in which a third parameter set is provided which includes one or more third parameter values indicating which of the functionalities associated with the one or more third parameter values are to be made available by the second device” and “a communication interface configured to output at least portions of the third parameter set” are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used to compare and select as recited in the claim, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic or computer component that is used for the functions recited in claim 1, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 recitation “providing, in a first device according to claim 1, a first parameter set including one or more first parameter values indicating whether a functionality associated with a first parameter value is to be made available by the first device to other devices; providing, in the first device, a second parameter set including one or more second parameter values indicating whether a functionality associated with a second parameter value is to be made available by the other devices to the first device” and “obtaining at least one third parameter set of a second device, the third parameter set including third parameter values indicating which functionalities associated with the third parameter values are to be made available by the second device” are insignificant extra-solution activities under MPEP 2106.05(g), without imposing meaningful limits. The limitation amounts to necessary data gathering or data outputting. (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output).
The claim recitation “comparing the third parameter set with the second parameter set, selecting, based on the comparison, one or more of the functionalities of the second device for use” add more detail to or are cumulative to the abstract idea of claims 1.
The claim recitation “establishing a payload connection with the second device if at least one functionality of the second device has been selected for use” is merely adding the word establishing with the judicial exception that attempts to cover a solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it", and does not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The recitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 recitation “obtaining a fourth parameter set of the second device, the fourth parameter set including fourth parameter values indicating which functionalities associated with the fourth parameter values are desired by the second device” and “based on the comparison, sending to the second device a message indicating which desired functionality can be made available” adds more detail to or is cumulative to the insignificant extra-solution activities of claims 1 and 7, under MPEP 2106.05(g), without imposing meaningful limits. The limitation amounts to necessary data gathering. (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output).
The claim recitation “comparing the fourth parameter set with the first parameter set” add more detail to or are cumulative to the abstract idea of claims 1 and 7.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recitation “wherein the parameter values are set as active or not active, respectively, and wherein the comparison includes: comparing the parameter values for each of the associated functionalities indicated in the parameter sets” add more detail to or are cumulative to the abstract idea of claims 1 and 7. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 recitation “selecting a functionality of the second device for use if the second and third parameter values are set as active for the selected functionality” add more detail to or are cumulative to the abstract idea of claims 1 and 7. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 recitation “wherein each functionality is identified by a unique identifier” add more detail to or are cumulative to the abstract idea of claims 1 and 7. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 recitation “storing obtained parameter values for the associated functionalities” is an insignificant extra-solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g), without imposing meaningful limits. The limitation amounts to necessary data gathering or data outputting. (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 recitation “outputting a first partial parameter set which contains at least a portion of the first parameter values, and/or outputting a second partial parameter set which contains at least a portion of the second parameter values, for reception by further devices” are insignificant extra-solution activities under MPEP 2106.05(g), without imposing meaningful limits. The limitation amounts to necessary data gathering or data outputting. (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 recitation “wherein the outputting is accomplished by transmission to one or more further devices that are connected to the device” adds more detail to or is cumulative to the insignificant extra-solution activities of claim 13, under MPEP 2106.05(g), without imposing meaningful limits. The limitation amounts to necessary data gathering or data outputting. (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 15 recitation “wherein the outputting is accomplished by a broadcast message” adds more detail to or is cumulative to the insignificant extra-solution activities of claim 13, under MPEP 2106.05(g), without imposing meaningful limits. The limitation amounts to necessary data gathering or data outputting. (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 recitation “wherein the outputting is performed in response to a request to output the first parameter set and/or the second parameter set” adds more detail to or is cumulative to the insignificant extra-solution activities of claim 13, under MPEP 2106.05(g), without imposing meaningful limits. The limitation amounts to necessary data gathering or data outputting. (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 17 recitation “wherein the functionalities include at least one of the following: controlling an actuator in the device, outputting data stored in the device, outputting data measured by the device, processing data by the device, or a property of the device” is merely adding the word controlling, outputting or processing with the judicial exception that attempts to cover a solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it", and does not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The recitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 18 recitation “establishing a payload connection with a further device in response to a use request, and making a functionality specified in the use request available to the further device” is merely adding the word establishing with the judicial exception that attempts to cover a solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it", and does not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The recitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 19 recitation “wherein each of the parameter values is specified as an attribute of an object that is associated with a functionality” is merely adding the word specified with the judicial exception that attempts to cover a solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it", and does not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The recitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 20 recitation “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having program code stored thereon, the program code, when executed by a computer processor, facilitating performance of a method according to claim 7” is configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used to compare and select as recited in claims 1 and 7, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic or computer component that is used for the functions recited in the claim, and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Newell, Jr. et al. (US 6,668,319 B1) (“Newell”). Newell is a reference cited in the information disclosure statement submitted on 11/28/2023.
Regarding independent claim 1, Newell teaches:
A device for providing functionalities, comprising: (Newell: FIG. 1 and Column 6, lines 13-21 “In this regard, it must be understood that the above definitions and following discussion of Devices 12 as Requesting Devices 12A or as Responding Devices 12B are for purposes of clarity and understanding in the following discussions. That is, while some Devices 12 may be designed to operate solely as Requesting Devices 12A or as Responding Devices 12B, Devices 12 typically will or are capable of operating as both Requesting Devices 12A and as Responding Devices 12B, that is, as Bilateral Devices 12C as described in the following.”) [Any one of the Bilateral Devices 12C operating as both a Requesting Device 12A and a Responding Device 12B reads on “[a] device”.]
at least one storage unit in which a first parameter set and a second parameter set are provided, wherein the first parameter set includes one or more first parameter values indicating whether a functionality associated with a first parameter value is to be made available by the device to other devices, wherein the second parameter set includes one or more second parameter values indicating whether a functionality associated with a second parameter value is to be made available by the other devices to the device; (Newell: Column 7, lines 50-56 “As shown, and according to the present invention, a Requesting Device 12A includes a Device Supported Features Table (DS Table) 30, which essentially stores one or more Feature Entries 30A wherein each Feature Entry 30A designates a Feature 18 supported by that Device 12A, so that a DS Table 30 is essentially a listing of the Features 18 supported by that Device 12A.”) (Newell: Column 12, lines 7-21 “A Responding Device 12B will thereby be initialized with respect to a Device 12 from which may receive Requests 22 for Features 18 by receiving a Declaration 34A from the Device 12 and providing a corresponding Declaration 34B to the Device 12.”) [The Features 18 of the Bilateral Device 12C operating as a Responding Device 12B that are available to the Bilateral Device 12C operating as a Responding Device 12A reads on “a first parameter set”, and the Features 18 of the Bilateral Device 12C operating as a Requesting Device 12A that can be received from the Bilateral Device 12C operating as a Responding Device 12B reads on “a second parameter set”.]
a communication interface configured to obtain at least one third parameter set from a second device, wherein the third parameter set includes third parameter values indicating which of the functionalities associated with the third parameter values are to be made available by the second device; (Newell: Column 6, lines 13-21 as discussed above) (Newell: Column 12, lines 7-21 as discussed above) (Newell: Column 4, lines 4-10 “Each feature is an operation of the system supported by at least one version of the protocol and each device includes a functional unit supporting at least a subset of the features of the protocol and a protocol mechanism executing at least one version of the protocol for communicating requests for features and responses to requests for features between the device and others of the devices.”) (Newell: Column 5, lines 39-47 “Referring to FIG. 1, therein is a diagrammatic representation of the present invention. As illustrated therein, an information processing System 10 will include two or more Devices 12 interconnected, for example, through a system bus or a local or wide area network, indicated generally as Interconnection 14, and communicate by means of a protocol as described herein above to request the performance of functions and operations and to respond to requests for functions and operations.”) [Using the protocol mechanism to communicate via the Interconnection 14 reads on “a communication interface”. Another one of the Bilateral Devices 12C reads on “a second device”, and the Features 18 of the another one of the Bilateral Device 12C operating as a Responding Device 12B that are available to the Bilateral Device 12C operating as a Responding Device 12A reads on “a third parameter set”.]
a processing unit configured to compare the third parameter set with the second parameter set, to select, based on the comparison, one or more of the functionalities of made available by the second device for use, and to establish a payload connection with the second device if at least one functionality made available by the second device has been selected for use. (Newell: Column 9, lines 28-42 “Upon receiving one or more Declarations 34B by means of Protocol 26 and Protocol Mechanism 24, the Match 32 of the Requesting Device 12A will write the contents of each Declaration 34B into a Match Entry 38 of a Match Table 40, so that Match Table 40 will contain a Match Entry 38 for and corresponding to each Device 12 with which the Requesting Device 12A may communicate. Each Match Entry 38 contains identifications of each of the Features 18 that are supported by the responding Device 12 and that match the Features 18 supported by the Requesting Device 12A, such as an RMatch List 36A from the Declaration 34B, may include an identification of the Device 12 providing the corresponding Declaration 34B, and may include a RPVer 36B identifying the version of Protocol 26 in use by the responding Device 12.”) (Newell: Column 10, lines 39-46 “Match 32 may then generate a message to Function Unit 20 identifying the Device 12 supporting the requested Feature 18, so that Function Unit 20 can generate a Request 22 directed to the Device 12 supporting the Feature 18, or Match 32 may redirect the Request 22 to that Device 12 and generate a message to Function Unit 20 that the Request 22 has been redirected to the Device 12 supporting the Feature 18.”) [The Match 32 reads on “a processing unit”, and the Match 32 performing matching and writing the contents of feature match between the features of the responding and requesting devices to the Match Entry 38 reads on “compare …” and “to select … one or more of the functionalities of made available …”. The matching that results in requesting to the responding device that supports the requested feature based on the Match Table 40 reads on “to establish a payload connection”.]
Regarding claim 2, Newell teaches all the claimed features of claim 1. Newell further teaches:
wherein the communication interface includes at least one of: a wired interface, a wireless interface, an optical interface, an inductive interface, or an acoustic interface. (Newell: Column 5 lines 39-47 “Referring to FIG. 1, therein is a diagrammatic representation of the present invention. As illustrated therein, an information processing System 10 will include two or more Devices 12 interconnected, for example, through a system bus or a local or wide area network, indicated generally as Interconnection 14, and communicate by means of a protocol as described herein above to request the performance of functions and operations and to respond to requests for functions and operations.”)
Regarding claim 3, Newell teaches all the claimed features of claim 1. Newell further teaches:
at least one of: an actuator, a sensor, a data storage unit, a data read unit, a data output unit, a computing unit, a control unit, a power supply, or a peripheral device connected to the device; and (Newell: Column 2, lines 10-53 “To illustrate the uses of such protocols further, a personal computer system will commonly include one or more printers to generate printed copies of electronic documents of various types and the personal computer will communicate with the printers through a printer protocol that will typically be used in common by a range of printers from different manufacturers and having different features. In larger systems, such as a system serving a corporate department or facility, the printing facilities will be provided by a device of the type referred to as a "paper handling controller" and other devices in the system, such as servers, processors, workstations and personal computers, will communicate with the "paper handling controller" through a "paper handling protocol". In this regard, a paper handling controller may be, for example, a printer, a multi-function device such as a Hewlett-Packard Mopier, which performs the functions of a networked printer, a copier and a scanner, a printer controller connected from a network and controlling a number of individual printers to form a printer complex or node, or a facsimile device. It will be understood, therefore, that the devices and protocols appearing in a large system may be analogous to those appearing in a smaller system, the term "paper handling controller" as opposed to "printer" denotes the wider range of features that may appear in the devices of a large system and the term "paper handling protocol" denotes the expansion or extension of the protocol or protocols to accommodate the wider range of features, and the adaptations necessary for communication in a large system, networked environment. For example, in a large system, or in a more complex small system, a paper handling controller may be a printer controller having access to and controlling a complex of printers or other devices that may provide a wide range of features. The devices of the system, such as the processors, workstations or personal computers, will communicate with the paper handling controlling through a paper handling protocol supporting the range of features supported by the devices available to the paper handling controller and adapted to a networked environment. The paper handling controller will, in turn, communicate with the individual printers or other devices using the same or a similar paper handling protocol or protocols, depending upon the printers or other types of paper handling devices connected from or accessible to the paper handling controller.”)
wherein functionalities of the at least one element are indicated in the first parameter set with associated first parameter values. (Newell: Column 1, lines 33-40 “A requesting device is correspondingly referred to as supporting a "feature" when it is capable of issuing a request for that feature of a responding device, and a protocol is referred to as supporting a "feature" when it includes the commands, responses and information formats necessary to communicate a request for that "feature" from the requesting device to the responding device, and the corresponding responses from the responding device to the requesting device.”) (Newell: Column 7, lines 36-42 “A Protocol 26, in turn, is, as described, a communication language designed for inter-device communication with respect to the tasks, functions or operations to be requested or performed by the Devices 12 and includes the commands, responses and information formats necessary to support the Features 18 that are the subject of Requests 22 and Responses 28.”) [The commands for the features reads on “associated first parameter values”.]
Regarding claim 5, Newell teaches all the claimed features of claim 1. Newell further teaches:
comprising or being part of at least one of: a computer, a microscope, a microtome, a high-pressure freezer, an automated stainer, a coater, a pipetting robot, a pick-and-place robot, a climate chamber, a laboratory automation device, a motorized stage, a heating system, a cooling system, an injection system, or an illumination device. (Newell: Column 2, lines 10-53 “To illustrate the uses of such protocols further, a personal computer system will commonly include one or more printers to generate printed copies of electronic documents of various types and the personal computer will communicate with the printers through a printer protocol that will typically be used in common by a range of printers from different manufacturers and having different features. In larger systems, such as a system serving a corporate department or facility, the printing facilities will be provided by a device of the type referred to as a "paper handling controller" and other devices in the system, such as servers, processors, workstations and personal computers, will communicate with the "paper handling controller" through a "paper handling protocol". In this regard, a paper handling controller may be, for example, a printer, a multi-function device such as a Hewlett-Packard Mopier, which performs the functions of a networked printer, a copier and a scanner, a printer controller connected from a network and controlling a number of individual printers to form a printer complex or node, or a facsimile device. It will be understood, therefore, that the devices and protocols appearing in a large system may be analogous to those appearing in a smaller system, the term "paper handling controller" as opposed to "printer" denotes the wider range of features that may appear in the devices of a large system and the term "paper handling protocol" denotes the expansion or extension of the protocol or protocols to accommodate the wider range of features, and the adaptations necessary for communication in a large system, networked environment. For example, in a large system, or in a more complex small system, a paper handling controller may be a printer controller having access to and controlling a complex of printers or other devices that may provide a wide range of features. The devices of the system, such as the processors, workstations or personal computers, will communicate with the paper handling controlling through a paper handling protocol supporting the range of features supported by the devices available to the paper handling controller and adapted to a networked environment. The paper handling controller will, in turn, communicate with the individual printers or other devices using the same or a similar paper handling protocol or protocols, depending upon the printers or other types of paper handling devices connected from or accessible to the paper handling controller.”)
Regarding claim 6, Newell teaches all the claimed features of claim 1. Newell further teaches:
a second device including: at least one storage unit in which a third parameter set is provided which includes one or more third parameter values indicating which of the functionalities associated with the one or more third parameter values are to be made available by the second device; and (Newell: Column 11 lines 6-11 “As shown, each Responding Device 12B also includes a Protocol Mechanism 24 to execute at least one version of at least Protocol 26 and a Device Supported Features Table (DS Table) 30 storing one or more Feature Entries 30A, each of which designates a Feature 18 supported by the Responding Device 12B.”) [The Device Supported Feature Table 30 (DS Table) reads on “at least one storage unit”. The features in the DS Table reads on “the functionalities associated with … are made available by the second device”.]
a communication interface configured to output at least portions of the third parameter set. (Newell: Column 7, lines 36-42 “A Protocol 26, in turn, is, as described, a communication language designed for inter-device communication with respect to the tasks, functions or operations to be requested or performed by the Devices 12 and includes the commands, responses and information formats necessary to support the Features 18 that are the subject of Requests 22 and Responses 28.”) [The commands for the features reads on “associated with the one or more third parameter values”.]
Regarding claim 7, Newell teaches all the claimed features of claim 1. Newell further teaches:
A method for providing functionalities, comprising: providing, in a first device according to claim 1, a first parameter set including one or more first parameter values indicating whether a functionality associated with a first parameter value is to be made available by the first device to other devices; providing, in the first device, a second parameter set including one or more second parameter values indicating whether a functionality associated with a second parameter value is to be made available by the other devices to the first device; (Newell: Column 1, lines 33-40 “A requesting device is correspondingly referred to as supporting a "feature" when it is capable of issuing a request for that feature of a responding device, and a protocol is referred to as supporting a "feature" when it includes the commands, responses and information formats necessary to communicate a request for that "feature" from the requesting device to the responding device, and the corresponding responses from the responding device to the requesting device.”) (Newell: Column 7, lines 36-42 “A Protocol 26, in turn, is, as described, a communication language designed for inter-device communication with respect to the tasks, functions or operations to be requested or performed by the Devices 12 and includes the commands, responses and information formats necessary to support the Features 18 that are the subject of Requests 22 and Responses 28.”) (Newell: Column 7, lines 50-56 as discussed in claim 1) (Newell: Column 12, lines 7-21 as discussed in claim 1) [The Features 18 and associated commands of the Bilateral Device 12C operating as a Responding Device 12B that are available to the Bilateral Device 12C operating as a Responding Device 12A reads on “a first parameter set including one or more first parameter values”, and the Features 18 and associated commands of the Bilateral Device 12C operating as a Requesting Device 12A that can be received from the Bilateral Device 12C operating as a Responding Device 12B reads on “a second parameter set including one or more second parameter values”. Being identified features in the DS Table 30 reads on “whether a functionality … is to be made available …”.]
obtaining at least one third parameter set of a second device, the third parameter set including third parameter values indicating which functionalities associated with the third parameter values are to be made available by the second device; (Newell: Column 6, lines 13-21 as discussed in claim 1) (Newell: Column 7, lines 36-42 as discussed above) (Newell: Column 12, lines 7-21 as discussed in claim 1) [The Features 18 and associated commands of the another one of the Bilateral Device 12C operating as a Responding Device 12B that are available to the Bilateral Device 12C operating as a Responding Device 12A reads on “a third parameter set including third parameter values …”. Being identified features in the DS Table 30 reads on “whether functionalities … are to be made available …”.]
comparing the third parameter set with the second parameter set, selecting, based on the comparison, one or more of the functionalities of the second device for use; and establishing a payload connection with the second device if at least one functionality of the second device has been selected for use. (Newell: Column 9, lines 28-42 as discussed in claim 1) (Newell: Column 10, lines 39-46 as discussed in claim 1) [The Match 32 performing matching and writing the contents of feature match between the features of the responding and requesting devices to the Match Entry 38 reads on “comparing …” and “selecting … one or more of the functionalities …”. The matching that results in requesting to the responding device that supports the requested feature based on the Match Table 40 reads on “establishing a payload connection”.]
Regarding claim 8, Newell teaches all the claimed features of claims 1 and 7. Newell further teaches:
obtaining a fourth parameter set of the second device, the fourth parameter set including fourth parameter values indicating which functionalities associated with the fourth parameter values are desired by the second device; (Newell: Column 7, lines 36-42 as discussed in claim 7) (Newell: Column 7, lines 50-56 as discussed in claim 1) (Newell: Column 12, lines 7-21 as discussed in claim 1) [The Features 18 of the another Bilateral Device 12C operating as a Requesting Device 12A that can be received from the Bilateral Device 12C operating as a Responding Device 12B reads on “a fourth parameter set”.]
comparing the fourth parameter set with the first parameter set; and based on the comparison, sending to the second device a message indicating which desired functionality can be made available. (Newell: Column 9, lines 28-42 as discussed in claim 1) (Newell: Column 10, lines 39-46 as discussed in claim 1) [The matching process between the Features 18 of the another Bilateral Device 12C operating as a Responding Device 12B that are available to the Bilateral Device 12C operating as a Responding Device 12A and the Features 18 of the another Bilateral Device 12C operating as a Requesting Device 12A that can be received from the Bilateral Device 12C operating as a Responding Device 12B reads on “comparing …”. Generating and providing the match list reads on “sending a message indicating which desired functionality can be made available”.]
Regarding claim 11, Newell teaches all the claimed features of claims 1 and 7. Newell further teaches:
wherein each functionality is identified by a unique identifier. (Newell: Column 8 line 65 – Column 9 line 9 “Each Declaration 34B will contain a Respondent Matching Features List (RMatch List) 36A containing identifications of the Features 18 that are supported by the Responding Device 12 and that match the Features 18 supported by the Requesting Device 12A for the Protocol 26 or version of a Protocol 26 identified in the Declaration 34A. A Declaration 34B may also contain an identification of the Device 12 generating the Declaration 34B, and may also contain a Respondent Protocol Version (RPVer) 36B identifying the Protocol 26 and version of Protocol 26 currently being used by the Device 12 providing the Declaration 34B.”) [The identification of the features read on “a unique identifier”.]
Regarding claim 12, Newell teaches all the claimed features of claims 1 and 7. Newell further teaches:
storing obtained parameter values for the associated functionalities. (Newell: Column 1, lines 33-40 as discussed in claim 7) (Newell: Column 7, lines 36-42 as discussed in claim 7) (Newell: Column 7, lines 50-56 as discussed in claim 1)
Regarding claim 13, Newell teaches all the claimed features of claims 1 and 7. Newell further teaches:
outputting a first partial parameter set which contains at least a portion of the first parameter values, and/or outputting a second partial parameter set which contains at least a portion of the second parameter values, for reception by further devices. (Newell: Column 4, lines 4-10 as discussed in claim 1) (Newell: Column 9, lines 28-42 as discussed in claim 1) (Newell: Column 10, lines 39-46 as discussed in claim 1) [The match list of features or the subset of the features reads on “a first partial parameter set” or “a second partial parameter set”.]
Regarding claim 14, Newell teaches all the claimed features of claims 1, 7 and 13. Newell further teaches:
wherein the outputting is accomplished by transmission to one or more further devices that are connected to the device. (Newell: FIG. 1 and Column 6, lines 13-21 as discussed in claim 1) [Any other devices 12 reads on “one or more further devices”.]
Regarding claim 15, Newell teaches all the claimed features of claims 1, 7 and 13. Newell further teaches:
wherein the outputting is accomplished by a broadcast message. (Newell: Column 16, lines 13-16 “Device 12 may broadcast to all other Devices 12 a Declaration 34A containing a statement of the features supported by the device as described above with respect to Declarations 34A.”)
Regarding claim 16, Newell teaches all the claimed features of claims 1, 7 and 13. Newell further teaches:
wherein the outputting is performed in response to a request to output the first parameter set and/or the second parameter set. (Newell: Column 4, lines 4-10 as discussed in claim 1) (Newell: Column 16 lines 4-18 “Also, it has been described above that a device will issue a declaration stating the features supported by the device and will receive declarations from other devices stating the features that they support in common with the device issuing the declaration, thereafter constructing entries in a matching features table to store information identifying the features supported in common with each other device. In an alternate embodiment of Requesting Devices 12A, Responding Devices 12B or Bilateral Devices 12C as illustrated in FIG. 2 and as described above, each Device 12 may broadcast to all other Devices 12 a Declaration 34A containing a statement of the features supported by the device as described above with respect to Declarations 34A. That is, and for example, the broadcast Declaration 34A would contain Features Entries 30A and may include protocol version information if necessary or desired, such as PVer 30B.”)
Regarding claim 17, Newell teaches all the claimed features of claims 1 and 7. Newell further teaches:
wherein the functionalities include at least one of the following: controlling an actuator in the device, outputting data stored in the device, outputting data measured by the device, processing data by the device, or a property of the device. (Newell: Column 7, lines 17-35 “Each Requesting Device 12A will include a Function Unit 20 for performing the functions and operations of the Device 12 wherein Function Unit 20 will be the source of Requests 22 for the performance or provision of Features 18 by other Devices 12. Each Requesting Device 12A will also include a Protocol Mechanism 24 that executes a Protocol 26 to communicate Requests 22 for Features 18 to others of Devices 12, such as a Responding Device 12B, and to receive Responses 28 from the other Devices 12 according to the Protocol 26, the Responses 28 being communicated to Function Unit 20 by Protocol Mechanism 24 for action by the Function Unit 20 as is appropriate. As described, a Function Unit 20 may be any source of a request for an operation or function to be performed or provided by another Device 12, such as a word processing program requesting a file from a file server or that a document be printed, an email program forwarding an email message to a recipient, a facsimile receiver/server forwarding a facsimile document to be stored or printed, and so on.”)
Regarding claim 18, Newell teaches all the claimed features of claims 1 and 7. Newell further teaches:
establishing a payload connection with a further device in response to a use request, and making a functionality specified in the use request available to the further device. (Newell: Column 6, lines 13-21 as discussed in claim 1) (Newell: Column 9, lines 28-42 as discussed in claim 1) (Newell: Column 10, lines 39-46 as discussed in claim 1) [Any other device 12 reads on “a further device”.]
Regarding claim 20, Newell teaches all the claimed features of claims 1 and 7. Newell further teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium having program code stored thereon, the program code, when executed by a computer processor, facilitating performance of a method according to claim 7. (Newell: Claim 7 “A computer readable medium having instructions for; receiving a declaration identifying a first protocol and first features for the first protocol and a second protocol and second features for the second protocol, the first and second features being supported by a first device; identifying, for a third protocol, third features supported by a second device; identifying a compatible protocol, the compatible protocol being whichever of the first or second protocols that is compatible with the third protocol; and comparing the features for the compatible protocol with the third features to identify features supported in common by the first device and the second device.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newell, in view of Simpson (US 2006/0092452 A1) (“Simpson”).
Regarding claim 4, Newell teaches all the claimed features of claims 1 and 3. Newell does not expressly teach the recitations of claim 4.
Simpson teaches:
wherein the sensor comprises at least one of: a temperature sensor, a pressure sensor, a position sensor, a GPS sensor, an acceleration sensor, a current sensor, a voltage sensor, an optical sensor, an image sensor, a motion sensor, or a humidity sensor. (Simpson: [0028] “For example, the first printer 108 includes a temperature 340 and a humidity sensor 342 that allows the first printer 108 to measure ambient temperature and ambient humidity. The EDS service 120 enables the first printer 108 to share environmental data that describes these measurements with the second printer 110. As noted above, both the first printer 108 and the second printer 110 share substantially the same ambient conditions. Therefore, the environmental data that is shared by the first printer 108 to the second printer 110 (via the EDS service 120) can be indicative of the ambient conditions presently being experienced by the second printer 110.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Newell and Simpson before them, to modify the system device, such as a printer, to incorporate a temperature and humidity sensor.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification because it would allow for adjusting the printer operating parameters based on the environmental condition. (Simpson: [0099] At block 1008, the server system transmits data to the printing device 1006. The data that is transmitted at block 1008 is based on the environmental data received from the reporter device at box 1006. That is to say, the transmitted data may be copy of the environmental data or could be data that is generated using the environmental data. For example, according to one implementation, the data transmitted at box 1008 may direct the printing device 1006 to adjust certain operational parameters.”)
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newell, in view of Shibaki et al. (US 2004/0257622 A1) (“Shibaki”).
Regarding claim 19, Newell teaches all the claimed features of claims 1 and 7. Newell does not expressly teach the recitations of claim 19.
Shibaki teaches:
wherein each of the parameter values is specified as an attribute of an object that is associated with a functionality. (Shibaki: [0097] “The printer 300 may have the function of the data converting unit 200, and the printer 300 may perform the image processing suitable for image attribute of an object.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Newell and Shibaki before them, to modify the features of the system device, such as a printer, to incorporate the ability to perform printing considering the image attribute of the object to be printed.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this modification because it would allow for processing the suitable image attribute of the object to improve the quality of the printed image. (Shibaki: [0006] “Since the document converted into an electronic file is a single plane image, when it is printed out, the entire area in the image including a text area and a picture area is subjected to a uniform halftone processing. As the halftone processing, dithering is generally used based on a threshold value using a dither matrix. Dithering with a relatively small number of lines is used for satisfying tone and graininess in a picture area such as a photograph. For example, a general color printer uses about 133 to 200 lines. In a text area, it is preferable to perform a halftone processing with excellent sharpness using dithering with more lines or error diffusion processing. Under present circumstances, however, few color printers can satisfy image quality for both the text area and picture area.”) (Shibaki: [0097] “The printer 300 may have the function of the data converting unit 200, and the printer 300 may perform the image processing suitable for image attribute of an object.”)
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-5069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL W CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116